MICHAEL LLOYD MEIER, ET AL. v. HUNTINGTON RIDGE TOWNHOUSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (Tn. Ct. App. October 24, 2008)
Homeowners association appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of owners who sued for a declaration that the Association was responsible for the cost of repair of defective floor trusses. The trial court found that found that the defective floor trusses were considered "common elements" under the covenants of the Association. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/meierm_102408.pdf
Showing posts with label homeowners association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homeowners association. Show all posts
October 24, 2008
February 21, 2008
Court takes the plain meaning of a homeowner's association declaration to find that developer's obligation to pay fees had not commenced
CORDOVA THE TOWN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. GILL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 21, 2008).
This appeal involves the interpretation of a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association. The declaration made the developer a member of the homeowners’ association, insofar as the developer owned lots within the development. It also stated that the obligation to pay assessments on a given lot did not begin until either the lot was transferred from the developer or improvements on the lot were completed, whichever occurred first. The homeowners’ association sued the developer, seeking damages for unpaid assessments on lots owned by the developer, on which improvements were not complete. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the homeowners’ association. The developer appeals. We reverse, concluding that the declaration of covenants provides that the obligation to pay assessments on the lots owned by the developer had not yet commenced.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/cordovat_091208.pdf
"Resolution of this dispute requires interpretation of the terms of the Declaration. At the outset, we note that our construction of the Declaration must proceed as would construction of any other written agreement. [] Accordingly, our first concern is the contracting parties’ mutual intent. [] If we find the Declaration to be unambiguous as it is written, the intention of the parties will be determined by the Declaration’s plain meaning. [] If a material part of the Declaration appears to be ambiguous, we look to extrinsic evidence. The ambiguity may be resolved against the party who drafted the Declaration." Id. (citations omitted).
"It is undisputed that the lots for which the assessments are sought are owned by Gill Development or were owned by Gill Development at one time. It is also undisputed that the improvements on those lots were incomplete at the time when the assessments were allegedly due. Accordingly, Gill Development’s obligation to pay assessments had not yet commenced." Id.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association. The declaration made the developer a member of the homeowners’ association, insofar as the developer owned lots within the development. It also stated that the obligation to pay assessments on a given lot did not begin until either the lot was transferred from the developer or improvements on the lot were completed, whichever occurred first. The homeowners’ association sued the developer, seeking damages for unpaid assessments on lots owned by the developer, on which improvements were not complete. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the homeowners’ association. The developer appeals. We reverse, concluding that the declaration of covenants provides that the obligation to pay assessments on the lots owned by the developer had not yet commenced.
Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/cordovat_091208.pdf
"Resolution of this dispute requires interpretation of the terms of the Declaration. At the outset, we note that our construction of the Declaration must proceed as would construction of any other written agreement. [] Accordingly, our first concern is the contracting parties’ mutual intent. [] If we find the Declaration to be unambiguous as it is written, the intention of the parties will be determined by the Declaration’s plain meaning. [] If a material part of the Declaration appears to be ambiguous, we look to extrinsic evidence. The ambiguity may be resolved against the party who drafted the Declaration." Id. (citations omitted).
"It is undisputed that the lots for which the assessments are sought are owned by Gill Development or were owned by Gill Development at one time. It is also undisputed that the improvements on those lots were incomplete at the time when the assessments were allegedly due. Accordingly, Gill Development’s obligation to pay assessments had not yet commenced." Id.
October 10, 2007
Homebuilders may be liable for misrepresentation for constructing features that would violate neighborhood restrictions when used by the homebuyer
ISLAND BROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. JANICE AUGHENBAUGH (Tenn.Ct.App. October 9, 2007).
The defendant had her house built in a restricted subdivision and began using it for operation of her fitness training business. The owners of the corporation that developed the neighborhood and constructed the defendant's house were also controlling members of the subdivision homeowners association's board of directors. The homeowners association filed suit to permanently enjoin the defendant from conducting her business out of her home upon grounds that such activity violated subdivision restrictions. In her answer and countersuit, the defendant argued that the homeowners association's controlling board members had waived the restrictions by certain actions during construction of her house. The defendant also filed a third party complaint against the development corporation and against the individual owners of the corporation for misrepresentation. Upon motions for directed verdict, the trial court granted the homeowners association's request for a permanent injunction and dismissed the defendant's countercomplaint against that entity. The trial court also dismissed the defendant's complaint against the individual owners by directed verdict, but denied the development corporation's motion for directed verdict. A jury then found the development corporation liable for misrepresentation. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the homeowners association's motion for directed verdict or in failing to grant the development corporation's motion for directed verdict. However, we conclude that the trial court did err in granting the individual owners' motion for directed verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and the case is remanded.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/islandbrook_100907.pdf
The defendant had her house built in a restricted subdivision and began using it for operation of her fitness training business. The owners of the corporation that developed the neighborhood and constructed the defendant's house were also controlling members of the subdivision homeowners association's board of directors. The homeowners association filed suit to permanently enjoin the defendant from conducting her business out of her home upon grounds that such activity violated subdivision restrictions. In her answer and countersuit, the defendant argued that the homeowners association's controlling board members had waived the restrictions by certain actions during construction of her house. The defendant also filed a third party complaint against the development corporation and against the individual owners of the corporation for misrepresentation. Upon motions for directed verdict, the trial court granted the homeowners association's request for a permanent injunction and dismissed the defendant's countercomplaint against that entity. The trial court also dismissed the defendant's complaint against the individual owners by directed verdict, but denied the development corporation's motion for directed verdict. A jury then found the development corporation liable for misrepresentation. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the homeowners association's motion for directed verdict or in failing to grant the development corporation's motion for directed verdict. However, we conclude that the trial court did err in granting the individual owners' motion for directed verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and the case is remanded.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2007/islandbrook_100907.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)